From: Arne Vajhøj on
Lew wrote:
> Arne Vajh�j wrote:
>> You are correct.
>>
>> My mistake.
>
> Thank you, Arne, for demonstrating how a person can take correction
> without thinking that someone accused him of lying.

I am probably in the top decile in stubbornness.

But there is not much point in trying to argue what is
polynomial and what is exponential. It would be like
trying to argue that 2+2=5.

Arne
From: Peter Duniho on
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 19:35:42 -0700, Arne Vajhøj <arne(a)vajhoej.dk> wrote:

> [...]
> But there is not much point in trying to argue what is
> polynomial and what is exponential. It would be like
> trying to argue that 2+2=5.

Um. But, it is! It's well-known that 2+2=5 for large values of 2.

Sorry to mess up your analogy. :)
From: Dave Searles on
Arne Vajh�j wrote:
> Lew wrote:
>> Arne Vajh�j wrote:
>>> You are correct.
>>>
>>> My mistake.
>>
>> [gratuitous personal attack deleted]

Wrong.

> I am probably in the top decile in stubbornness.

Admission duly noted for the record.

> But there is not much point in trying to argue what is
> polynomial and what is exponential. It would be like
> trying to argue that 2+2=5.

Who was arguing either? I just pointed out that adding more variation to
the password characters is the former and adding more suffix length or
similarly is the latter, which is perfectly correct.